Saturday, September 02, 2017

Age of Faith, Age of Virtue?

I got into a discussion about the Middle Ages on Twitter last night, which is a bad idea because I seem to be too middle aged to succeed in doing anything with Twitter other than posting the occasional link or quip. So I'm going to be like the old fashioned creature that I am and write a blog post instead.

What initially caught my attention was this comment from a friend:

One suspects heaven is more well-populated with medieval peasants than modern Americans.

I should admit right off that a portion (perhaps the major portion) of what rubs me the wrong way on this is that I tend to distrust any speculation about who is and is not in heaven. There's an appealing sort of Catholic triumphalism about imagining the Middle Ages as a period when everyone was on our side, while in modernity we face a fractured Christendom and many people who aren't Christian at all, but I'm very leery of saying that the people 'on my side' are actually more likely to get to heaven than others. It smacks of a bit of presumption, and also it being 'my side' I'm in a good position to appreciate all those people's worst points.

However, the other thing which strikes me here is historical. The more time I spend on history, the more it strikes me that when we look at a past time and note that certain vices common in society now were less accepted then, what we often miss is that other vices sprang up instead to take their place. Human beings are a fallen bunch, and I can't see it that we're notably better in one era than another. This is something which has struck me a lot when doing novel research, admittedly dealing with the era only a hundred years ago. One frustration I have with a lot of modern historical writers is that they write their characters as if they were really exactly the same as now in their family and moral attitudes. A basic amount of primary source reading makes it clear that this was not the case. But it also makes it clear that while some of our chronic modern problems were not common then, there was a whole other set of problems in their place. People were neither better, nor worse, nor the same: they were different.

As Brandon expanded on his thesis, however, it proved to mostly center on closer connection with the sacraments and the graces which they provide:

Human nature doesn't change, of course, but it seems to me they would have had more social structures in place to nurture virtue.

To expand my comment above in non-Twitter language: I think that there are two questions to consider here.

The first is whether people were really as steeped in the sacraments and the life of the Church as we might like to imagine. It's certainly true that there was no distinction between the secular calendar and the liturgical calendar. Holidays were just that: Holy Days. Times of fast and penance also shaped the year, as did the cutting loose which preceded such sober times.

And yet, we also know that this did not necessarily look like the practice of people who devotedly live the liturgical year now. Reception of the sacraments was not necessarily all that frequent. When the Fourth Lateran Council made clear the necessity of going to confession and receiving communion at least once a year, that was because it was fairly common for people to receive the sacraments even less often. There were major problems with corruption and ignorance among the clergy, and thus in turn among the flock they were supposed to be guiding. It's late to be truly medieval (1500s) but Carlo Ginzburg's classic study The Cheese And The Worms about the inventive heresy developed more or less through ignorance by a small town miller in northern Italy (which eventually led to his burning at the stake) helps underscore that however pervasive the Church was as a structure, even somewhat educated people (the Miller could read) often knew startlingly little about their faith.

There was also the difficulty that the integration of the Church into everyday life could actually make people resent it. We think of anti-clericalism as something which broke loose in many traditionally Catholic countries in the modern era, but it's arguably that it was the toppling of old structures in modernity which allowed much older resentments to be expressed. When very poor people owed significant portions of their labor or the products of it to the local institutions of the Church, it's natural that the Church would become a target for economic resentment. We see some of that in the humorously derisive anti-clericalism in works like The Canterbury Tales and The Decameron. I think this history is also arguably why modern age revolutions in Catholic countries (France, Mexico, Spain, etc.) often involved repression of the Church and mass killing of priests and religious -- resentments against power and the rich inevitably ended up becoming tangled with resentments against the Church because the Church was seen as (and was) powerful and rich.

The second question is whether, granting that people were more deeply connected with the Church and her sacraments on a daily basis, that actually led to people being more virtuous.

This reminds me of questions I've struggled with in the past in regards to prayer: On the one hand, we believe that prayer does actually accomplish something. To pray for someone's healing or someone's conversion is actually to do something which has an effect on the other person. And yet, when we turn that around, I'm hesitant to make arguments like: "He didn't convert because not enough prayers were said for his conversion." or "She didn't recover from her illness because not enough people prayed for her healing." And yet, if we can't say "This person was healed because he was prayed for, and if he hadn't been prayed for he wouldn't have been healed" then what exactly do we mean by prayer having an effect? (I don't know the answer to this.)

Similarly, I believe that it is good for people to receive the graces of the sacraments and to know the teachings of the faith. And yet, we also know that from those to whom much is given, much is expected. I believe that it's a good thing that I go to mass every week and receive the Eucharist. But it seems a very dangerous presumption to say that because of this I'm more likely to go to heaven than my neighbor who doesn't. The Bible and the saints often speak of the great dangers faced by those who believe they are righteous. Does that mean that one is more likely to make it to heaven if one doesn't participate in the sacraments and the life of the Church? Certainly not. But I'm also hesitant to say that we know we're more likely to be saved if we're active in the Church.

Again, I think we see some of this in medieval history and literature. The Canterbury Tales are the story of a group of people setting off on a pilgrimage to the shrine of a great saint. And yet, they're actually a fairly worldly bunch, and remain worldly on the journey. Perhaps it's still more of a force for virtue in their lives than if they were moderns embarking on an Alaskan cruise. Or perhaps not. I don't know.

I've spent much of my life around social groups defined by active participate in the life of the Church. I think there are benefits to living in that way. And yet I'm also very much aware of the resentments, pettiness, selfishness, and abuse of power which is fairly common in those groups, and sometimes seems to be all the more vicious because people believe they're doing it all for God.

I want to believe that it could be (and was) different. But I'm not sure that I do.

7 comments:

"And yet, when we turn that around, I'm hesitant to make arguments like: "He didn't convert because not enough prayers were said for his conversion." or "She didn't recover from her illness because not enough people prayed for her healing.""

I hope you'd use a stronger term than "hesitant"! Wouldn't that belief be, essentially, some form of prosperity gospel, or superstition? I don't know the exact name for this belief, but I'm pretty sure it's explicitly heretical.

That (my strongest reaction) being said: This is an excellent post altogether, articulating some questions that are well worth discussing potential answers to in detail. Wish I had time to engage...

We certainly always forget that the medievals would have, depending on the time and place, accepted things that would shock us -- priests with mistresses, and adulterous affairs as a matter of course, and duels to the death.

I think Chaucer, at least, can possibly be seen as making an argument that things like pilgrimages can be a kind of force of virtue -- they are indeed a worldly bunch, and the motivation for their journey has more to do with wanting to get out and about than with devotion. But as they approach the shrine, listening to the Parson sermonize on the seven deadly sins, they are preparing their souls in some sense. Although, of course, one can wonder how much this is a description of how pilgrimages were and how much it is really intended to be more a picture of the Church as a whole, a bunch of often crude and always flawed people on the road to a heaven that is better than we deserve, than a description of medieval Catholic life. And one can wonder, too, what kind of soul-preparation the pilgrims are really doing, and how much they are just waiting out the Parson's lecture; it's hard to imagine the Wife of Bath repenting of anything (and noticeably she's one of the most 'churchy' people there).

I also think, though, that we have to distinguish a Catholicized imagination from living a virtuous life as a Catholic. It's certainly the case that the general imagination, the way people thought about the world, was more Catholic in its imagery. But this is different from the question of the kind of life they led.

"I also think, though, that we have to distinguish a Catholicized imagination from living a virtuous life as a Catholic. It's certainly the case that the general imagination, the way people thought about the world, was more Catholic in its imagery. But this is different from the question of the kind of life they led."

It didn't occur to me when writing the comment above to remark that I was a different Brandon from the Brandon who Brendan was talking about; but so it is -- I forgot that this comment system doesn't give my last name. Watson, not McGuinley, in case there's any confusion.

An interesting discussion with so many delightful sidelights and tangents! Earlier today I read a quote from the seers of Fatima - I generally avoid reading about Fatima because, well, I don't get it AT ALL - who said that Our Lady told them "[M]any souls go to hell, because there are none to sacrifice themselves and to pray for them.” Which of course raises questions very similar to yours about the efficacy of prayer - to say nothing of questions of the fatherly love of God or of the free will of the individual or of the saving power of Christ's own sacrifice. This is a part of Catholicism that I just don't get AT ALL. As I said before...

On the one hand, my sense is that Brandon is almost certainly correct about Medieval Europe, to the extent we can say anything at all about how many are saved or damned; on the other hand, *whatever* age we're talking about, the overwhelming sense of the Gospels (cf. Luke 13:23-24, Matt 22:13-14, Matt 7:13-14, etc.) and how they have been received by the Church's Fathers, Doctors and saints is that most souls are damned. So perhaps not much for the medievals to boast about.

"An interesting discussion with so many delightful sidelights and tangents! Earlier today I read a quote from the seers of Fatima - I generally avoid reading about Fatima because, well, I don't get it AT ALL - who said that Our Lady told them "[M]any souls go to hell, because there are none to sacrifice themselves and to pray for them.” Which of course raises questions very similar to yours about the efficacy of prayer - to say nothing of questions of the fatherly love of God or of the free will of the individual or of the saving power of Christ's own sacrifice. This is a part of Catholicism that I just don't get AT ALL. As I said before..."

When there is a statement from a mystic or "seer" or from another form of a private revelation that I can't wrap my head around, like the one you quoted, I think of two options. One, what the mystic actually experienced was imperfectly expressed in human words/language structure/translation, a part of the meaning gaining more importance than it actually had, or that the seer's own mind filtered it in an imperfect way. Two, that it is expected of the faithful to interpret it in a way that doesn't contradict Catholic teaching. In this case, that might mean: many people who resist Divine grace to the degree of going to hell might have been saved by people praying for them. In some way, the prayers of the faithful might add something to the salvation of a sinner that is missing otherwise. I don't really know how it's possible since God gives us all the grace we need for our salvation (so how can people's prayer add something to it if it's not enough or not received enough?), but I think it's one of the mysteries we can't "get completely" until we are in Heaven.

Contributors

Reading

With the Catholic News sites discussing the Vatican's move to reform the LCWR, I pulled this slim volume written back in 1986 off the shelf to re-read. It's a quick and amusing read: a satirical view of the breakdown and renewal of reli...

I'd never read any Henry James before, though I did see the Nicole Kidman movie adaptation of Portrait of a Lady some years ago because... well, because it was a costume drama with Nicole Kidman in it.
This was one of those novels I ...

If you, like me, have been reared on tales of the second World War as the just and virtuous struggle of the "greatest generation", Evelyn Waugh's arch novels (based loosely on his own war experiences) are an important and darkly enjoyabl...

This was the first time in some years that I've re-read this Austen novel, one of the quieter and shorter ones, but one which has ranked among my favorites. It was striking me, on this pass, that it rather shows the effects of having be...